reSee.it - Related Video Feed

Speaker says USAID funding amounts to terrorism. He notes $697,000,000 annually, plus shipments of cash funds Madrasas, ISIS, Al Qaeda, Boko Haram, ISIS Khorazan, terrorist training camps. If you think that the program under operation enduring Sentinel entitled Women's Scholarship Endowment ($60,000,000 annually) or the Young Women Lead ($5,000,000 annually) is going to women— inspector general's report says the Taliban does not allow women to speak in public. He asserts Americans are told this funds women, but 'You are funding terrorism, and it's coming through USAID.' He adds USAID spent $8,840,000,000 in the last twenty years on Pakistan's education related program, including $136,000,000 to build 120 schools with zero evidence any were built; inspector general can't get in to see them. They spent $20,000,000 to create educational television programs for children unable to attend the school; 'You paid for it. Somebody else got the money. You are paying for terrorism.'

"What are you doing about the starving children in Gaza? What are you doing?" "Taking money from APAC, with respect. That's something that is infiltrated our our government." "APAC. APAC money. Watch congressman Jake Auchincloss discover in real time that his voters know he's bought and paid for by the Israeli lobby." "What are you doing to prevent the use of our taxes to starve and kill people in Gaza?" "Starvation is not is not what my tax dollars should go to." "Do you believe killing children and civilians in the name of strategic defense is ever justified? Yes or no?" "It's somewhat related question. I wanna make clear, I'm a lifetime Democrat, and I will probably continue to be. But I also feel that all three branches of our government are betraying the people of The United States right now."

We're sending millions in cash to Afghanistan, even weekly shipments of $40-80 million, to folks like the Haqqani network. This is on top of the $697 million annually, funding madrasas, ISIS, Al Qaeda, and terrorist training camps. Programs like the Women's Scholarship Endowment aren't helping women; they're funding terrorism through USAID. We're essentially paying welfare to Taliban martyrs' families, while American families who lost loved ones get nothing. Some argue this prevents them from joining ISIS, but it's a lie to justify funding our enemies. The US government has been backing these groups since the late '70s, using them against other countries and even against us. It's a setup for America's collapse.

I want to thank my colleague, Tim Birchitt, for introducing this important bill and my colleagues for cosponsoring it in the House and Senate. The fact that $40 million in cash payments are being delivered weekly to the Taliban is an outrage. After the terror attack on 9/11, the United States entered Afghanistan in 2001 when the Taliban refused to hand over Osama bin Laden. Since then, over 2,500 US military members have been killed. Now, the Taliban is the current reigning government of Afghanistan, so to send them money is unacceptable. 72% of Americans support cutting waste, fraud, and abuse in our federal government. Americans work too hard to see their tax dollars go straight into the hands of terrorists through these cash payments and NGOs. I urge Speaker Mike Johnson to bring this bill to a vote and for all of our colleagues to vote yes to stop this money from being sent to the Taliban.

Speaker 0 contends that NGOs (nongovernment organizations) are not truly nongovernmental because they are funded by borrowing money and by money from donors, including billionaires. He claims they receive a large amount of funding, and the process involves borrowing funds and then distributing them to NGOs. He uses Afghanistan as an example, noting that there was a bill to defund the Taliban and that in the Senate there was opposition to adding NGOs to that effort. He argues that billionaire adversaries of the United States will put money into groups with fancy names (citing “feed the children” as a possible example)—a million dollars to start, which is "pennies on their dollars" for these donors. He asserts that these NGOs apply for federal money, and then an unelected bureaucrat in Washington declares them legitimate, leading to billions of dollars flowing to these organizations. Speaker 0 states that in Afghanistan alone, there are over a thousand nongovernment organizations operating there, and when combined with United Nations operations, the number could be multiples of thousands. He questions whether the money is being spent on certain events, asking, “do you really believe we're spending $10,000,000 on a dadgum drag show?” and asserts that the money ends up back in politicians’ pockets, with a paper trail that someone will uncover, though he believes it probably goes into dark money campaigns that oppose good Republicans as well. He concludes that this situation “has got to stop.” He ends by thanking Donald Trump and JD Vance.

The speaker claims the U.S. has given close to $5 billion to the Taliban via NGOs, and this continues. They allege this money cycles back to Washington, with a paper trail that Elon Musk has alluded to. The speaker believes USAID money goes "almost a %" right back to Democrat campaign coffers, with some Republicans also possibly benefiting. They state that Republican leadership is upset about these claims but acknowledges their truth. The speaker also questions how Joe Biden could have reviewed 8,000 pardon files, suggesting "payola" and shadiness in Washington D.C., particularly across various departments.

Official A states that in 2022, the office found that president Biden's DHS allowed some Afghans into the country before they were fully vetted, including one who had been liberated from prison by the Taliban. Official A notes that over 50 known or suspected terrorists had entered the United States as a result of Biden administration screening or lack thereof, and that last month the director of national intelligence said that 2,000 Afghans in America may have ties to terrorism. Official A asks whether a formal vetting process was in place, and asserts that the department did not have a formal process at the start of the OAW. Official A repeats the figure and corrects it to 36,000, calling it astounding. Official B replies that CARE, the Council on American-Islamic Relations, is the organization in question, stating that CARE was founded at a 1993 meeting and that they specifically state they are going to present themselves as a legitimate civil rights organization while furthering the mission of Hamas. Official A asks how much money CARE received from the federal government to shepherd Afghan parolees. Official B responds that CARE received $15,000,000 in California and more than $1,000,000 in Washington. Official A adds that when they check federal databases for CARE, they find nothing, and Official B explains that the money did not go directly from the federal government to CARE, but rather through an intermediary, and that this is how they’ve hidden the money. Official A states, “We need to find out where this money has gone. This is a scandal. This is corruption, and we've gotta figure out how taxpayer money has ended up in the hands of yet another organization terrorized.”

Speaker 0 asks if the US will freeze the $6 billion that was unlocked for Iran in exchange for prisoners, considering Iran's support for Hamas. Speaker 1 responds that none of that money has been spent yet. Speaker 0 then asks if the US will prevent Iran from using the money for their activities, to which Speaker 1 reiterates that none of the money has been spent.

I've found some questionable expenditures by USAID, like the $3,000,000 given to a rap artist in Gaza who was producing anti-Israel, anti-Semitic songs. Is that really the best way to use American taxpayer money? I don't think so. During tomorrow's hearing, we will be addressing this issue, as well as the fact that the woke ideology that USAID is pushing in various parts of the world is not welcomed.

The speaker was asked if there is evidence that Maxine Waters, Adam Schiff, and Chuck Schumer have received money directly from USAID. The speaker responded that taxpayer money is sent to government organizations, then to NGOs, which are government-funded but not governed by U.S. laws. Money is sent overseas to NGOs and the speaker is confident that some of it returns to the U.S. and ends up with the aforementioned politicians. The speaker states that it's not a direct route, but that some members of Congress are strangely wealthy, accumulating millions while earning significantly less annually, which is unexplainable. The speaker says they are going to try to figure it out and stop it from happening.

Speaker 0 argues that USAID funding amounts to supporting terrorism and that the money flows through programs intended for Afghan women but ultimately funds extremist networks. The speaker cites a total of $697,000,000 annually, plus shipments of cash funds that allegedly support Madrasas, ISIS, Al Qaeda, Boko Haram, ISIS Khorazan, and terrorist training camps. They claim that programs under Operation Enduring Sentinel, specifically the Women’s Scholarship Endowment, which receives $60,000,000 annually, and the Young Women Lead program, which gets about $5,000,000 annually, are not benefiting women as described. The speaker notes that, according to the inspector general’s report, the Taliban does not allow women to speak in public, yet asserts that the money is being used to improve Afghan women’s lives. The speaker contends that the money is not for the betterment of women in Afghanistan but is funding terrorism, and that the funds are coming through USAID. The critique extends beyond Afghanistan to Pakistan, stating that USAID spent $8,840,000,000 in the last twenty years on Pakistan’s education-related program. This includes $136,000,000 allocated to build 120 schools, with “zero evidence” that any of them were built, arguing that the inspector general cannot obtain access to verify the projects. The speaker further claims that USAID doubled down by spending $20,000,000 to create educational television programs for children who cannot attend physical school, adding that they “can’t attend it because it doesn’t exist,” asserting that taxpayers paid for it and that “somebody else got the money.” In conclusion, the speaker asserts that taxpayers are funding terrorism and that the program must end, yielding the floor to the chairman.

Speaker 0 asserts that Netanyahu was continually helping Hamas to survive. Speaker 1 claims that while Netanyahu was under investigation, he arranged for Hamas to receive $35,000,000 every month from Qatar. Speaker 2 contends that Netanyahu cannot give the money himself because Israel would not give money to Hamas, and banks would not cooperate, so Netanyahu must beg Qatar, a small but very rich country, to provide money to their enemy. Speaker 0 contends that these suitcases of money were given to Hamas at the personal request of Benjamin Netanyahu, and that because the Qatari side knew him from the beginning, they asked him to send their requests in writing because they believed he would lie in the future. Speaker 1 asserts that Netanyahu allowed more than $1,000,000,000 to be transferred to the hands of Hamas because he believed he could control the level of hatred, and states that this notion is nonsense, adding that he cannot control the flames.

The transcript records a contentious exchange in a congressional hearing focused on fraud allegations in Minnesota tied to Somali immigrant communities, with aggressive rhetoric and several pointed questions from Speaker 0 and Speaker 1. Key points and sequence: - Speaker 0 decries what they call “insane” behavior regarding Rep. Nancy Mace’s simple question and references a “cover up.” - Speaker 1 asserts a “tr breathtaking” amount of fraud allegedly perpetrated against Americans by Somalis in Minnesota, accusing Democrats of avoiding discussion and calling for accountability, suggesting the fraud could exceed Somalia’s GDP. - Speaker 1 asks the witness (Mr. Balu) whether Somali-Americans should be required to speak English if they are American citizens, pressing for a yes/no answer. The question is deemed “inappropriate” by Speaker 2, who says the question is not appropriate, while Speaker 1 insists on a simple yes/no. A point of inquiry is raised about whether English is the official language of the United States. - Repeated interruptions occur as Speaker 1 seeks to reclaim time, with a back-and-forth over the validity of the questions. - Speaker 1 asks whether Somalians who committed fraud should be denaturalized and deported; Speaker 2 replies that most Somali Minnesotans are citizens, and he attempts to answer under US law. The exchange continues with insistence on yes/no answers, including a question about denaturalization for those who commit immigration fraud or marry a relative (brother) in relation to immigration fraud—viewed as inappropriate by Speaker 2. - Speaker 1 asks for a significant contribution to Minnesota from a Somali immigrant who cannot speak English; Speaker 2 begins to respond but the question remains unresolved. - The discussion shifts to Robbins, who is asked about Al Shabaab and whether money defrauded from the US went to Al Shabaab. Robbins explains that while there is no specific amount in general remittance fraud, a portion is taken as “tax” or corruption by Al Shabaab when funds enter the country. - Speaker 1 asks for clarification about who Al Shabaab is; Robbins identifies it as a terrorist organization in Somalia, affiliated with Al Qaeda in the speaker’s view. - The DNI is cited by Speaker 1 as stating that since 2014 Al Shabaab has killed more US citizens than any other Al Qaeda affiliate and, as of 2025, is Al Qaeda’s wealthiest component. The transfer of this claim is linked to debates about US tax dollars and Minnesota governance, including criticism of Governor Tim Walz (referred to as Tim Walls) and a mention of his resignation, with credit given to a YouTuber for highlighting Minnesota fraud. The discussion also involves Keith Ellison and questions about their roles and awareness of fraud within Minnesota. - Robbins details how the administration allegedly hindered internal controls and investigations by the OIG and DHS. - Speaker 0 concludes with a reiteration that residents seeking citizenship or asylum should learn English, asserting that many Somali immigrants in Minnesota did not speak English and questioning how they perpetrated such large fraud, and asks what questions should be asked moving forward. Overall, the transcript captures a highly charged exchange blending accusations of widespread fraud, language policy questions, denaturalization debates, and allegations concerning the funding of extremist organizations, with references to specific political figures and agencies.

The conversation centers on punitive measures allegedly imposed by the United States and the accusations surrounding who is responsible for violent crime and support of extremist groups. Speaker 0 accuses Speaker 1 of being shut down because of criticisms of people profiting from mass murder. In response, Speaker 1 details a cascade of sanctions and restrictions: “I’m banned from travel to The US. I am financially censored. I cannot have a a credit card. I cannot be receive payment. I cannot make payments.” Speaker 1 adds that health insurance has been suspended “because I’m sanctioned by The United States,” indicating a broad range of denials tied to U.S. sanctions. Speaker 0 challenges Speaker 1, asking if anything is being left out and probing whether Speaker 1 has engaged in activities such as sending money to Hamas or participating in actions against the IDF, labeling Hamas as “A terror group.” The implication of the question is to suggest that Speaker 1’s sanctions might be connected to support for hostile or criminal activity. Speaker 1 responds by reframing the accusation, stating, “The only one who’s aiding and abetting someone else committing crime is The United States.” This assertion presents the United States as the active party in aiding or abetting crimes, according to Speaker 1. Speaker 0 concludes the exchange with a soft expression of concession, saying, “I’m sorry. I’m sorry to agree with you on that,” implying reluctant agreement with Speaker 1’s critical stance toward U.S. actions. Key points emphasize the scope of Speaker 1’s sanctions: travel ban to the United States, financial censorship, inability to use a credit card, inability to receive or make payments, and suspension of health insurance due to U.S. sanctions. The dialogue also highlights a dispute over responsibility for violence and crime, with Speaker 1 asserting that the United States is the one aiding and abetting crimes, while Speaker 0 questions whether Speaker 1 has engaged with or supported extremist activity such as funding Hamas or opposing the IDF. The exchange ends with Speaker 0 acknowledging agreement with Speaker 1’s critical position on U.S. involvement, albeit reluctantly.

Speaker 0 raises a question about accountability for Israel and mentions Jeffrey Epstein’s dealings with Mossad. Speaker 1 asks, without specifics, whether there are forces that tried to influence him to stop what he’s doing now. Speaker 0 responds that they wouldn’t vote for foreign aid and foreign war funding, and they were upset because he said no. He states: “I’m not voting to fund the Ukraine war ever,” and “Israel’s doing just fine. We don’t need to give them a penny, not a single penny, nor do we need to give it to any other country, but they get mad at me for that.”

Speaker 0 and Speaker 1 discuss the presence and influence of the Taliban within government and international circles, and the U.S. approach to engagement. Speaker 1 suggests that while there may not be overt Taliban infiltration as a formal party, there are lobbyists, supporters, and Taliban in neckties and suits in Washington, pointing to the speech of the U.S. special envoy to Afghanistan, Thomas West, as evidence of whitewashing the Taliban. Speaker 0 counters that the U.S. is in regular, productive dialogue with the Taliban, and believes the Taliban are sincere but frustrated. He notes that no sanctions have been passed against the Taliban since last August, that four Americans have returned, but several remain in Taliban custody. He also highlights that the U.S. has backed the shipment of hundreds of millions of dollars in cash into the country since August, and claims it is actually over $1,000,000,000. Speaker 0 states that the U.S. has cooperated with the Taliban on certain discrete issues, including closing roads and managing crowds to prevent terrorist disruption, and that he has had a series of engagements with senior Taliban leaders. When asked about returning to Afghanistan to meet with the Taliban, he says, “The sooner, the better,” noting that the Taliban want sanctions relief, development aid, and a big seat at the table. He mentions an announced plan to pump in another $308,000,000, and describes mechanisms that are getting hundreds of millions of dollars in cash directly into the banking system. The Taliban purportedly want to seat their permanent representative in New York. ISIS-K is described as a common enemy, with the Taliban maintaining a vigorous and robust effort against it. He asserts that, despite concerns, they are building productive relationships and an honest dialogue with Taliban members, while acknowledging the priority of countering ISIS-K. He references the Doha agreement breach by the Taliban in sheltering Ayman al-Zawahiri in downtown Kabul, which he characterizes as unacceptable and a major breach, and states that even after this event, the U.S. is prepared to engage pragmatically with the Taliban regarding terrorism concerns. Speaker 1 adds that the UN and World Bank are developing a humanitarian exchange facility to move more Afghans into the system, noting that many banknotes have circulated for over ten years and are not accepted by shops or the central bank. He mentions a private-sector arrangement in Europe facilitating the shipment of hundreds of millions in cash into private banks in Afghanistan, with money going to the Afghanistan International Bank (AIB), which allegedly lacks authority to convert dollars to Afghanis and to auction them, and then passes funds to the Taliban-controlled Central Bank of Afghanistan. He asks who is in charge of the Central Bank, identifying Nur Ahmad Ora as the head, described as sanctioned by the U.S. for financing IED attacks that killed American soldiers. He concludes that diplomacy with the Taliban is essential to achieve objectives and asks whether there are Taliban in elections, asserting that they hold official offices and are present, urging the listener to review their statements to determine if they are Taliban sympathizers or whitewashing the Taliban. The conversation ends with Speaker 0 remarking, “Man, that's scary.”

Some allies that the U.S. works with and protects militarily are sending massive amounts of money to ISIS and Al Qaeda. When asked which countries are doing this, the speaker states, "You know who it is." The speaker then confirms that Saudi Arabia is one of the countries funding these groups, stating, "They're doing it. Everybody knows that." When asked about other countries involved, the speaker says there are others but declines to name them due to having relationships with people from those countries. The speaker asserts that "everybody knows that, and nobody says it."

The speaker was asked if there is evidence that Maxine Waters, Adam Schiff, and Chuck Schumer have received money directly from USAID. The speaker responded that taxpayer money is sent to government organizations, then to NGOs, which are government-funded but not governed by U.S. laws. Money is sent overseas to NGOs and the speaker is confident that some of it returns to the U.S. and ends up with the aforementioned politicians. The speaker states that it's not a direct route, but that some members of Congress are strangely wealthy, accumulating millions while earning salaries of only around $200,000 per year. The speaker says they are going to try to figure it out and stop it from happening.

We've learned that USAID has been used to push globalist propaganda and potentially fund terrorism, even resulting in American deaths, which could lead to criminal referrals. The agency may need to be abolished. We aim to expose the millions of dollars going to radical organizations, some with ties to terrorists. There are questions about why mechanisms to prevent foreign aid from reaching terrorist groups aren't working, especially when we see terrorist weaponry linked to these funds. For years, USAID has been a slush fund for left-wing propaganda. We need to ensure American tax dollars benefit American citizens and interests, not wasted on things like DEI musicals abroad. This may be the world's largest money laundering scheme in history. We're committed to creating transparency across the government, thanks to President Trump and Elon Musk, who will help expose every corner of government. That is what the American people want.

Discussion centers on alleged leakage of U.S. foreign aid to terrorist groups. 'we are sending $40,000,000 a week to the Taliban,' 'We have assisted Al Shabaab in Somalia' with 'Hamzee network in Sudan, Hamas, Islamic Jihad Hezbollah' and 'Dozens of terror organizations have received indirect assistance from US foreign aid.' In Gaza, '$2,100,000,000 in American taxpayers money to Gaza since October 7 when Hamas invaded Southern Israel.' USAID money was used under an 'emergency use authorization' to reach parties 'USAID formerly had a relationship with in the Gaza Strip,' with waivers; '90% of aid ... ended up in Hamas controlled areas' and there was 'no strategic thought' or screening; 'Samantha Powers ... was intent on having Israel not be able to defend itself.' NGOs/UN agencies lobby against vetting; USAID funds its own private lobby; HR 160 would increase transparency. A regulation naming terrorists in databases was 'overturned by Biden.'

We spent $9 billion to resettle around 90,000 Afghan refugees since the fall of Afghanistan, averaging about $100,000 per person, which seems excessive. My question is, why are we providing any funds when we don't even have an embassy or diplomats in Afghanistan? The funds we provide come through partners like UN agencies and NGOs. We could apply that reasoning to all foreign aid, including funds going to foreign adversaries.

Speaker 0 argues that “they’re making hundreds of billions of dollars a year more,” and that this funding emboldens them to give their proxies “weapons, money, and the vigor to attack the Jewish state,” which he says is unacceptable in the international community. He sets the stage for a connection between large flows of money and aggressive action by those proxies. Speaker 1 responds by asserting that “the only reason that Hamas attacked Israel, the only reason they’ll able to is because of increased Iranian funding,” and adds that Hamas is funded “in part” by Iran but that Hamas also receives funding from various other sources. He names possible funders such as Iran and Qatar and questions who funds Iran, suggesting multiple sponsors. Speaker 0 presses the point with a direct question, “Who funds Iran?” prompting Speaker 1 to identify Qatar as a potential funder. Speaker 0 repeats and confirms, expressing uncertainty about specifics by saying, “Buffans? Okay. Who from Hamasi? Of course they do. Right?” Speaker 1 continues with uncertainty, noting that “they were transferring a whole lot of money to the Gaza Strip” and references the Gaza funding issue as a major scandal associated with Netanyahu, described as “one of the big scandals that Netanyahu was involved in,” tied to letting that money pass through to the Gaza Strip, though he adds “I don’t know this is supervision.” In the dialogue’s core, Speaker 0 posits a logical implication: “If Iran gets more money, that’s good for Hamas. Right? You agree on that? Come on.” Speaker 1 responds with a cautious “Broadly speaking,” and Speaker 0 presses further, urging Speaker 1 to concede one point, addressing him by name, Steven. Overall, the exchange centers on the linkage between international funding, particularly Iranian and Gulf-state money, to Hamas and its activities, with attention to the claim that large monetary flows empower proxies to threaten Israel, and with references to past allegations about the transfer of funds to Gaza and the political fallout surrounding those funds.

We send $40-87 million weekly to Afghanistan, some of which goes to Taliban martyrs' families as welfare. US families of fallen soldiers get nothing. Some justify this by saying it prevents Taliban members from joining ISIS, but the Taliban members are already dead. It's enraging that we fund our enemies while ignoring where the money goes.

What's the deal with those dadgum NGOs? Nongovernment organizations. 'They're not nongovernment because you and I fund it. We borrow the money to send to them.' Afghanistan, for instance, where we had the bill to defund the Taliban. 'In the senate now, but and the other side, oh, man, they pitched a fit when we added NGOs. We're cutting them off.' 'Do you really believe we're spending $10,000,000 on a dadgum drag show? Where's the money go?' 'Afghanistan alone, over a thousand nongovernment organizations are working out.' 'There’s a paper trail.' 'Somebody's gonna find out about it, but we know it probably goes into dark money campaigns, fighting good Republicans as well.' 'And thank you Donald Trump and JD Vance.' Dadgummit.

The speaker claims that $697,000,000 of U.S. money annually funds Madrasas, ISIS, Al Qaeda, Boko Haram, ISIS Khorazan, and terrorist training camps. They allege that programs like the Women's Scholarship Endowment ($60,000,000 annually) and Young Women Lead ($5,000,000 annually) are not benefiting Afghan women, because the Taliban does not allow women to speak in public. The speaker states that USAID spent $8,840,000,000 in the last twenty years on Pakistan's education programs, including $136,000,000 to build 120 schools, but there is zero evidence that any were built. They add that USAID spent $20,000,000 to create educational television programs for children unable to attend these nonexistent schools. The speaker concludes that U.S. money is funding terrorism and demands that it end.